Cargando…

Role of biomechanical assessment in rotator cuff tear repair: Arthroscopic vs mini-open approach

BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff (RC) tears are one of the most frequent pathologies within the shoulder girdle. Hand dominance and older age are associated with RC tears. Two different surgical procedures, the mini-open (MO) and all-arthroscopic (AA) approach, represented the standard of treatment. AIM: To...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Solarino, Giuseppe, Bortone, Ilaria, Vicenti, Giovanni, Bizzoca, Davide, Coviello, Michele, Maccagnano, Giuseppe, Moretti, Biagio, D'Angelo, Fabio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8696602/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35036341
http://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v12.i12.991
_version_ 1784619852556664832
author Solarino, Giuseppe
Bortone, Ilaria
Vicenti, Giovanni
Bizzoca, Davide
Coviello, Michele
Maccagnano, Giuseppe
Moretti, Biagio
D'Angelo, Fabio
author_facet Solarino, Giuseppe
Bortone, Ilaria
Vicenti, Giovanni
Bizzoca, Davide
Coviello, Michele
Maccagnano, Giuseppe
Moretti, Biagio
D'Angelo, Fabio
author_sort Solarino, Giuseppe
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff (RC) tears are one of the most frequent pathologies within the shoulder girdle. Hand dominance and older age are associated with RC tears. Two different surgical procedures, the mini-open (MO) and all-arthroscopic (AA) approach, represented the standard of treatment. AIM: To compare the clinical and biomechanical outcomes of two surgical techniques (AA vs MO procedure) performed to address the painful shoulder syndrome with partial or total supraspinatus tendon tear. METHODS: Eighty-eight participants, 50 following RC repair with AA and 38 with MO approach, were recruited in the present cross-sectional case-control study (ORTHO-SHOULDER, Prot. 0054602). All patients underwent postoperative clinical evaluation for pain (Visual analogic scale), impairment, and disability (disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand) and limitation in daily activity (Constant-Murley score). Patients’ shoulder mobility was also assessed in our Laboratory of Functional Movement through a wearable inertial sensor and surface electromyography to monitor kinematics and muscle activity during the movement on the frontal (abduction/adduction) and sagittal (flexion-extension) planes. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences between the two procedures were observed in either main clinical score or range of motion. A significant increase in velocity during the movement execution and a higher contribution of upper trapezius muscles were found in the AA group compared with MO patients. CONCLUSION: In terms of clinical scores, our findings were in line with previous results. However, the use of technology-based assessment of shoulder mobility has revealed significant differences between the two techniques in terms of mean velocity and pattern of muscle activation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8696602
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86966022022-01-13 Role of biomechanical assessment in rotator cuff tear repair: Arthroscopic vs mini-open approach Solarino, Giuseppe Bortone, Ilaria Vicenti, Giovanni Bizzoca, Davide Coviello, Michele Maccagnano, Giuseppe Moretti, Biagio D'Angelo, Fabio World J Orthop Case Control Study BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff (RC) tears are one of the most frequent pathologies within the shoulder girdle. Hand dominance and older age are associated with RC tears. Two different surgical procedures, the mini-open (MO) and all-arthroscopic (AA) approach, represented the standard of treatment. AIM: To compare the clinical and biomechanical outcomes of two surgical techniques (AA vs MO procedure) performed to address the painful shoulder syndrome with partial or total supraspinatus tendon tear. METHODS: Eighty-eight participants, 50 following RC repair with AA and 38 with MO approach, were recruited in the present cross-sectional case-control study (ORTHO-SHOULDER, Prot. 0054602). All patients underwent postoperative clinical evaluation for pain (Visual analogic scale), impairment, and disability (disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand) and limitation in daily activity (Constant-Murley score). Patients’ shoulder mobility was also assessed in our Laboratory of Functional Movement through a wearable inertial sensor and surface electromyography to monitor kinematics and muscle activity during the movement on the frontal (abduction/adduction) and sagittal (flexion-extension) planes. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences between the two procedures were observed in either main clinical score or range of motion. A significant increase in velocity during the movement execution and a higher contribution of upper trapezius muscles were found in the AA group compared with MO patients. CONCLUSION: In terms of clinical scores, our findings were in line with previous results. However, the use of technology-based assessment of shoulder mobility has revealed significant differences between the two techniques in terms of mean velocity and pattern of muscle activation. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2021-12-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8696602/ /pubmed/35036341 http://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v12.i12.991 Text en ©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Case Control Study
Solarino, Giuseppe
Bortone, Ilaria
Vicenti, Giovanni
Bizzoca, Davide
Coviello, Michele
Maccagnano, Giuseppe
Moretti, Biagio
D'Angelo, Fabio
Role of biomechanical assessment in rotator cuff tear repair: Arthroscopic vs mini-open approach
title Role of biomechanical assessment in rotator cuff tear repair: Arthroscopic vs mini-open approach
title_full Role of biomechanical assessment in rotator cuff tear repair: Arthroscopic vs mini-open approach
title_fullStr Role of biomechanical assessment in rotator cuff tear repair: Arthroscopic vs mini-open approach
title_full_unstemmed Role of biomechanical assessment in rotator cuff tear repair: Arthroscopic vs mini-open approach
title_short Role of biomechanical assessment in rotator cuff tear repair: Arthroscopic vs mini-open approach
title_sort role of biomechanical assessment in rotator cuff tear repair: arthroscopic vs mini-open approach
topic Case Control Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8696602/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35036341
http://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v12.i12.991
work_keys_str_mv AT solarinogiuseppe roleofbiomechanicalassessmentinrotatorcufftearrepairarthroscopicvsminiopenapproach
AT bortoneilaria roleofbiomechanicalassessmentinrotatorcufftearrepairarthroscopicvsminiopenapproach
AT vicentigiovanni roleofbiomechanicalassessmentinrotatorcufftearrepairarthroscopicvsminiopenapproach
AT bizzocadavide roleofbiomechanicalassessmentinrotatorcufftearrepairarthroscopicvsminiopenapproach
AT coviellomichele roleofbiomechanicalassessmentinrotatorcufftearrepairarthroscopicvsminiopenapproach
AT maccagnanogiuseppe roleofbiomechanicalassessmentinrotatorcufftearrepairarthroscopicvsminiopenapproach
AT morettibiagio roleofbiomechanicalassessmentinrotatorcufftearrepairarthroscopicvsminiopenapproach
AT dangelofabio roleofbiomechanicalassessmentinrotatorcufftearrepairarthroscopicvsminiopenapproach